Volume
I Number I February (2012) pp. 169-75 The
Clarion ISSN : 2277-1697

Different Paradigm on Factional Politics: Reference to Asom Gana Parishad

Dipak Kumar Sarma

Research Scholar, Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology, Guwahati, Assam

Email: d.sarma@iitg.ernet.in

Abstract

The paper is a theoretical exploration to the field of factional
politics. It is a discussion on definitional issues of factionalism
along with practical references to the scenario throughout the
world. References have been made to factional politics in India,
especially that in Assam in order to discover new paradigm in that
area. Asom Gana Parishad (AGP) a regional political party in Assam has
been taken as a case study. The study is based on secondary data
sources and historical approach is applied to analyze the facts of
factional politics in Assam.

In a nutshell, factional politics differs according to geographical,
demographic and historical conditions. Factionalism in developing
nations is more intense than that of in the developed ones. The
societies with diverse ethnic groups like that in Assam, nurture more
contentious politics which results in loose political organization
building is a fertile ground for factional politics.

Keywords: Factionalism,
political mobilization and articulation, ethnicity and identity
politics, leadership crisis, political support base.

1. Introduction

1.1 After the 2nd World War many colonies of Asia and Africa got
independence. These aspiring new members of the world community had
many issues to address immediately viz., socio-economic development,
political and national consolidation etc. People of the respective
countries began to look at the State as Mai-Baap (all encompassing
state). New constitutions were promulgated with novel objectives of
welfare state, socio-economic equality, liberty and freedom for
amelioration of the teeming millions. But only a few countries have
succeeded to achieve these aims partially. The shortcomings were
inherent in the very nature of the society of the respective nations.
Most of the Constitutions vowed to build up Democratic Republic through
free and fare election process. But substantive democracy remained a
day dream and procedural democracy hijacked the noble objectives of
true democracy. Society and value system remained medieval and
undemocratic. The reason might be; the colonial legacies, education,
administration continued and state failed to bring sustainable change.
Almond and Powel has rightly observed that expectations on the part of
the people were high and capability of the state was low, which
resulted in frustration at many levels. Therefore, many newly emerging
countries became ‘failed state’. Inequalities widened, disproportionate
wealth and resources at certain pockets made the people to feel
‘relatively deprived’. Corruption was reaching the pick point and
‘social capital’ curve took down-ward direction. In many countries,
military ruler took over the administration and natural political
process was halted. Pakistan, Myanmar, Libya, Indonesia and many
African nations fall to the evil of military dictatorship. The
‘dependency theory’ of Egyptian economist Samir Amin may help to
understand this dilemma of reverse development. Amin propounded the
view that ‘resources flow from a "periphery" of poor and underdeveloped
states to a "core" of wealthy states, enriching the latter at the
expense of the former’, is the main reason behind the economic and
socio-political instability in the developing countries. . It is a
central contention of dependency theory that poor states are
impoverished and rich ones enriched; by the way poor states are
integrated into the "world system." The fact that many developed
countries patronized the military rule in the natural resource rich
developing countries to continue the plunder is enough to suffice the
argument of ‘dependency theory’.

1.2 All the developing countries had to fight hard to cope with the
transition process after independence in 20th century. The process of
nationality formation in these geographically and ethnically diverse
countries was full of antagonism. For example in India, nationalism and
national interest failed to unite different ethnic and language
communities. Regionalism came to the fore as a political force against
nationalism. It was at the same time a bane and a boon. Because,
regionalism on one hand, helped the neglected regions and communities
to make the centre hear their demands; hence opened up new scope for
true federation in India. On the other hand, the extreme form of
regionalism became hindrance to national security and development. At
times, the ‘regionalism turned secessionism’ became an industry of
exploitation and extortion. Thus, the vicious cycle of pauperization of
the teeming million continued.

2. Assam, Assamese and Regional Polity

2.1 Assam is small state in the North Eastern part of India (78438
km2), home for many ethnic communities having different culture,
language and community organizations. The ethnic identity and culture
run through the vein of people of Assam. The ethnic mosaic of the state
is supplanted by rich natural resources, river system and scenic
beauty. Yet Assam is a poor state. The reason-some might attribute to
the negligence of the Centre, some to the geographical condition and
other to the crisis of leadership in political arena. Whatever it is,
people of Assam have suffered. This has resulted in people’s movements
against the state authority for better development, e.g., the refinery
movement, language movement, and movement for food and finally the
Assam Movement of 1979 to 1985. The Assam Movement, most prominent one
brought the state to standstill for six long years. The motto of the
movement was to drive out the foreigners from Assam, i. e., the
Bangladeshi immigrants. The All Assam Student Union (ASSU), Assam Gana
Sangram Parishad, Assam Jatiyotabadi Yava Chatra Parishad (AJYCP),
Purbanchaliyo Loka Parishad(PLP), Assam Sahitya Sabha held the steering
wheel of the movement, backed by many intellectual of Assam. The
incessant influx from across the border and the lack of political will
to check it made the people revolutionary. All the ethnic communities
supported the movement by heart. As fallout of the movement the Assam
Accord was signed in 1985 and a new regional political party, namely;
Assam Gana Parishad (AGP) was formed under the stewardship of Prafulla
Mahanta as the President and Bhrigu kumar Phukan as the General
Secretary. AGP won the Assembly election in 1983 and formed the
government in Assam. Prafulla Kr. Mahanta became the Chief Minister.
People had great expectation but the new government failed to deliver
up to that. In the mean time the extremist wing of the Assamese
nationalists youth formed an underground separatist organization;
United Liberation Front of Assam (ULFA). This group rose to the
occasion and started to enjoy popular support. The AGP government also
failed to keep the small ethnic groups under the same umbrella of
Assamese Nation. The Bodo people started agitating for separate
state. Other ethnic groups also directed their grievances toward
the negligence of the State government. Movement for ‘autonomous state’
was started in the Karbi Angong and North Cacher Hills by Autonomous
State Demand Committee (ASDC). All these led to the downfall of AGP in
1991 election. But the main reason behind was the failure was
intra-party conflict on personal basis, lack of organizational strength
and trust deficiency upon the leadership. Because of factionalism in
AGP, the NAGP was formed in 1991. In 1996 though the party again came
to power, Atul Bora faction split away from the party and formed
Trinamul Gana Parishad. The government again failed meekly. The
allegations of secret killing, inability to pay salary to the
government employees and rampant corruption defeated AGP in 2001.
During this time an attempt was there within the party to isolate the
former Chief Minister Prafull Mahanta. Mahanta on his own frayed a new
political party; Asom Gana Parishad-Progressive (AGP-P) and contested
election. Since then, Asom Gana Parishad (AGP) the main opposition
political party and the icon of regionalism in Assam have keep on
defeated on three consecutive times in 2001, 2004 and 2011. In
2011 Assembly election, AGP could get only 10 seats. Many political
observers have opined it as a death nail to the coffin of the regional
political party. Asom Gana Parishad provides a scope for study on the
factional aspect of political parties in modern democracy, the reason
behind factional split and the modus-operandi of factional politics.

3. Defining Factionalism

3.1 Factionalism is hard to define. Many political thinkers like
Samuel Johnson, James Madison used the term ‘faction’ more or less as a
synonym to political party but with opprobrious sense, conveying the
imputation of selfish or mischievous ends or turbulent or unscrupulous
methods. Madison in his ‘Tenth Instalment of the Federalist Papers’
defines a faction as "a number of citizens, whether amounting to a
minority or majority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some
common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of
other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the
community." In plain English this is a group that pursues self interest
at the expense of the common good. However, this definition lacks a
holistic view. Political parties in modern democracies are formed in
order to articulate the people’s interest; otherwise they won’t be able
to win elections. And even a faction within the political party may
have appeal of the general interest. Therefore, we cannot define
political faction only in opprobrious sense. As we talk about
intra-party democracy, healthy faction also may strengthen the
political party indirectly. One glaring example is the Vallabhbhai
Patel faction in Congress in India during the days of Jawaharlal Nehru.

3.2 A political faction is a grouping of individuals, such as
political party or trade union or other group with a political purpose.
A faction or political party may include fragmented sub-factions,
“parties within a party," which may be referred to as power blocs, or
voting blocs. The individuals within a faction are united in a common
goal or set of common goals. They band together as a way of achieving
these goals and advancing their agenda and position within an
organization. Factions are not limited to political parties; they can
and frequently do form within any group that has some sort of political
aim or purpose.

3.3 Another definition says that, faction is a group of persons
forming a cohesive, usually contentious minority within a larger group.
Faction depicts conflict within an organization or nation. It is
internal dissension; it may occur due to a personal clash or
ideological cliff. The reason of factionalism in CPI in 1964 was
ideological. But the same with the DMK party in Tamil Nadu is mostly
personal clash of interest of the leaders.

3.4 Paul R. Brass in his book ‘Factional Politics in an Indian
State: the Congress Party in Uttar Pradesh’ examined the impact of
internal factionalism upon the ability of the Congress to deal
effectively with the diverse forces in its environment. Concentrating
on the North Indian state of Uttar Pradesh, the book analyses the
problems of party organization at the local and district levels, where
modern politics and the traditional society met. In the districts, the
Congress then had to deal with such forces as Hindu-Muslim tension,
conflict and alliance between castes, and the continuing influence of
ex-landlords in the countryside. He argues that political faction
arises when self regarding interest overwhelms the other regarding
interests. In a nutshell, factional politics is the articulation of
political interest-of majority or minority group- within a organized
party structure, with a view to promote the desired end, either through
exerting pressure upon the parent organization or by forming a new
political party.

4. Philosophical Dimensions of Factionalism

4.1 It is even impossible for every human being to be essentially
"non-political" since we are, according to Aristotle, “political
animals.” Many political philosophers; right from the days of the
‘Greek Polis state’ have dealt with the problems of governance and
revolution in the state. Examples may be cited of Kautilya, Aristotle
and Machiavelli and others who discussed at length the causes of
internal dissention or revolution and the measures to pacify it. With
the march of democratic polity along the concept of nation state and
nationality, the party system and party politic have emerged as the
best means to sustain the ideology of democracy and to contain social
contradictions. According to liberal tradition of thought factionalism
is inevitable within the democratic political party, because the
parties provide a platform to the diverse and contradictory groups in
the civil society to ventilate their causes. Therefore, factional
rivalry and contradictions are the necessary evils to strengthen
democracy. On the other hand, the Marxist school of thought denounce
the factional element in political parties. There is no place for
factionalism within the vanguard party. Marxist school believes in the
existence of only two classes; capitalists and proletariats in society.
The vanguard political party representing the proletariats do not
tolerate factional conflict. Small groups and diverse interests
are tabbed as reactionary. According to Marxism, the Socialist
revolutions would ensue in classless society eliminating the
capitalists and there would be no need for political party either. As
such factionalism occurs only in the Bourgeoisie democracy and
bourgeoisie party system which promotes the vested interests of the
capitalists.

4.2 There is another dimension of factionalism. The Civil War of
England in the 17th century and that of the USA in the 18th century was
an outcome of factionalism on national scale. Even during the Indian
freedom struggle, factional ideology emerged and dominated the
political scenario. The ideological differences of B R Ambedkar and M K
Gandhi, M A Jinnah and J Nehru, Subhash Basu and Gandhi are some
evidences. As such factionalism may occur on national scale
irrespective of a political party system. The mushrooming of the
political parties in India in post independence period is a development
resulted on the superstructure, whereas the factional issue and
factional politics operates quietly in the infrastructure. From the
developments in the Third world countries; where politics
operates quite differently from that of the developed nations, we can
churn out a third world perspective of factionalism as well. Political
articulation and socialization on primitive sentimental agenda, like
caste, religion, etc make the political parties victim of factionalism
in the Third world countries.

5. Factional Politics in Different parts of the World

5.1 “Our own beloved country..... is now afflicted with faction and
civil war”(Abraham Lincoln). Lincoln while addressing his fellow
citizens of USA indicates that faction is internal dissention within a
nation. All nations have faced factional war in one or other time in
history. But in modern developed nations; in mature democracies like
UK, USA, Russia, France etc there are hardly any instances of factional
politics. (e.g., Hillary Clinton was a political contender to Barack
Obama. But after the presidential election Obama invited Clinton to
head the most prestigious portfolio, Secretary of States. In Russia,
former President Vladimir Putin agreed to be the Prime Minister under
new President Dmitry Medvedev). Factionalism is more intense in the
developing countries of Asia and Africa. Because, the political system
is immature and political socialization and articulation does not
happens in rational terms.

5.2 Muslim League, the oldest political party in Pakistan is reeling
under factional conflict. In fact, the whole country has seen ethnic
and sectarian conflict making the functioning of all political parties
measurable. After all, story the failure of Pakistani democracy begins
and ends with factional politics. In Iran, the post Khomeini period,
especially after the landslide victory of President Mohammad Khatami
and the ensuing struggle between reformers and the entrenched
conservative religionists is factional politics. Competing
ideologies and practical issues versus a sometimes dangerous conflict
have been a day to day course in Iran now a day. Zimbabwe, Nigeria,
Kenya and many African nations are also feeling the heat of factional
politics.

6. Factional Politics in India

6.1 The problem of factionalism in Congress party can be traced back
to 1948, after the death of Gandhi, when dissenting parties within
Congress (such as the Congress Socialist Party) was banned by Patel’s
constitutional amendment. The Congress became more like a streamlined
political party in its operation-dissent was driven underground. This
position remains stable in the first decade of independence, as
political success often came about as a proven loyalty to the
charismatic ‘tall men’ and party leaders such as Nehru. However, in the
absence of well-developed opposition, and before parliament itself
provided effective instrument for the ventilation of grievances and the
crystallisation of dissident opinion, the Congress party had to perform
these functions after the independence. The Freedom Movement too
inevitably produced factional divisions in Indian society. The defeat
of Congress in 1967 election is attributed to factionalism. Many of the
opposition leaders who formed government in the states were dissident
leaders of the Congress themselves. There had been an ongoing conflict
between the ‘ministerial’ and ‘organizational’ wing of Congress party
as well. At a local level, congressmen aimed to seek popular support
not only to win election but also to strengthen their positions viz. a
viz. other factions within Congress. On some issues Chief Ministers had
to fight hard against the centre-regardless of party loyalty-in order
to shore up local support. In the 1980 factionalism in Congress had
become all-pervasive. Indira Gandhi’s centralising and authoritarian
tendencies had caused strain on federal consensus and factions have
developed around social class, regional diversity, modern and
traditional values and simple personal ambition-described by Banfield
as ‘amoral familism’. The Congress experience has shown that ‘one
dominant party system’ with no major threat from other parties is a
breeding ground for factional rivalry in politics.

6.2 Among the other national political parties Communist party of
India (CPI) have tasted factionalism. A serious rift within the party
surfaced in 1962. One reason was the Sino-Indian War, where a faction
of the Indian communists backed the position of the Indian Government,
while other sections of the party claimed that it was a conflict
between a socialist and a capitalist state, and thus took a pro-Chinese
position. There were three factions in the party - "internationalists",
"centrists", and "nationalists". Ideological differences lead to the
split in the party in 1964 when two different party conferences were
held, one of CPI and one of the Communist Party of India-Marxist
(CPI-M). There is a common misconception that the rifts during
Sino-Indian war lead to the 1962 split. In fact, the split was leftists
vs. rightists, rather than internationalists vs. nationalists. After
this the communist bloc was again divided during the time of the
Naxalbari Movement in the 1970s when the Communist Party of
India-Marxist-Leninist (CPI-ML) was formed.

6.3 Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam(DMK) of Tamil Nadu is a noted regional
political party in South India, which faced the brunt of factionalism
in 1969, when party general secretary and founder CN Annadurai died.
After his death, there came the power tussle between M Karunanidhi and
V R Nedunchezhiyan. Karunanidhi succeeded sidelining Nedunchezhiyan,
the most senior leader after Anna and became the Chief Minister. In
1972 the political feud between M G Ramachandran (MGR) and the party
president Karunanidhi emerged. MGR called for a boycott of the party's
General Council. With the crisis falling into call for corruption probe
by MGR, he was eventually suspended from the General Council. Thus
emerged a new political party All India Anna Dravida Munnetra
Kazhagam(AIADMK). In 1977, DMK lost the Assembly elections to MGR's
AIADMK, and stayed out of power in the state till 1989. After MGR's
death in December 1987, AIADMK split into two factions between Janaki
(MGR's wife) and Jayalalithaa, paving way for DMK in 1989. Jayalalithaa
emerged as unchallenged leader of AIADMK. Since then these two parties;
DMK and AIADMK have shared the political power alternatively in Tamil
Nadu.

6.4 Shiromani Akali Dal(Akali Dal) is a Sikh nationalist political
party based in Punjab. The basic philosophy of Akali Dal is to give
political voice to Sikh issues (panthic cause) and it believes that
religion and politics go hand in hand. The current party recognized by
Election Commission of India is the one led by Prakash Singh Baadal.
The Akali Dal has splintered into numerous groups, such as Shiromani
Akali Dal (Democratic) led by Sardar Kuldip Singh Wadala, Shiromani
Akali Dal (Longowal) founded on principles of late Sardar Harchand
Singh Longowal, former President of the original Shiromani Akali Dal,
Shiromani Akali Dal (Simranjit Singh Mann) also known as Shiromani
Akali Dal (Amritsar), Shiromani Akali Dal (UK), Shiromani Akali Dal
Delhi, Haryana State Akali Dal, a splinter group based in a
neighbouring state, Haryana etc.

7.1 Why AGP have failed as a regional political party? The primary
reason to my mind is factionalism. Since its advent AGP has been split
thrice. Even within the party in normal condition, there are splinter
groups operating on personal and parochial agenda. Each leader along
with a handful of supporters acts as a faction. General public
interests hardly surface as the leitmotif of these factions. Therefore
it is a matter of research, why a regional political party with such a
vibrant popular support is ridden with factionalism. Is it the lack of
ideological strength or political organization; visionary leader or
destiny? The AGP was formally constituted in the year 1985 in Golaghat,
in the aftermath of the signing of Assam Accord to end the six
year long Assam Movement to drive out the foreigners from Assam. After
the independence, Indian State due to its engagement with the
consolidation process could not pay sufficient attention towards the
peripheral states like Assam. This is one of the main reasons of the
regional disparity in economic development in India after the
independence. Infrastructure development in North Eastern States was
further lessened after the Sino-Indian War. Of the record it is said
that the Delhi lobby had a fear that China might attack again and
infrastructural development will help the enemy. After the Bangladesh
war in 1971 large number of refugees came to Assam at the auspices of
Central government and after the conclusion of the war Central
Government did not do anything to return those illegal refugees. In
fact, illegal influx to Assam continued unabated backed by political
interests. These people threatened to change the demographic profile
and there was a tension among the indigenous people in Assam that one
day they might lose the political power to the numerically growing
immigrants. Along with these factors, the language movement, the
movement for food and the refinery movements made the ground fertile
for the grand Assam Movement in 1979. Moreover, during this period the
left ideology and activities was going on in Assam in full swing in the
cultural and political arena. Some observers try to see the Assam
Movement as a conspiracy of the ‘rightists’ to avert a possible social
revolution. This is partially evident from the fact that the trade
union leaders and intellectuals, who were critical about the Assam
Movement, were attacked and even killed in the name of being
communist. As such the ground for the new political party in
Assam i.e. the AGP was filled with contradictions in the 1980s.
Whatsoever, the party won the Assembly election in 1985 with handsome
figures and formed the Government in Assam. But the symptoms of
factionalism surfaced even before the election. The leaders were quite
young and they hardly valued the wisdom of the veteran leaders and
political observers. Personal clash and groupism became inevitable
within the party.

7.2 Factional politics within AGP surface more prominently at the
time of contesting the Assembly election and for the Lok Sabha in 1985
when the elders were fielded in the Lok Sabha seats and the young and
inexperienced were given tickets to contest from the Assembly
constituencies. Muhikanta Saikia, Paragdhar Chaliha, Dinesh Goswami,
Dr. Nagen Saikia were such veteran leaders who were not allowed to
contest in Assembly election. These leaders were capable of good
administration in the State. In fact this was a deliberate effort to
make place for the young goons of the party. The party in opposition
i.e. the Congress, and its leaders was shrewd and veteran people. Now a
day, even the AGP leaders express that the element of factionalism in
AGP was an agenda of the Congress and the centrist parties, to make the
regional force weak.

7.3 In 1991 just before the Assembly election, dissident AGP leader
Dinesh Goswami formed a new political party Natun Asom Gana
Parishad(NAGP). Bhrigu kumar Phookan and Pulakesh Baruah were the other
prominent AGP Leader who joined the party. The reason of the split was
personal rift between the leaders. These two parties contested
elections separately resulting in the defeat of AGP. Congress again
came to power. AGP Government failed to fulfil the aspirations of the
Assamese people, it was corruption ridden. The failure in governance
also had some impact upon the split of 1991. It is interesting to see
that all the three leaders forming the NAGP belonged to upper caste
brahmine. So, one can presume that caste factor and caste rivalry might
have occurred within AGP.

7.4 In 1996, due to the anti-incumbency factor against the Hiteswar
Saikia government paved the way for AGP. People voted the party again
to the power. But intra-party conflict and rift continued in AGP. Atul
Borah one of the prominent founder leader frayed another political
party-Trinamul Gana Parishad(TGP). During this period the ULFA
increased its activity of extortion and the so called War against the
Indian State. The public life was in disarray. The allegations of
Secret Killing and Fodder Scam against Chief Minister Prafulla Mahanta
made the factional clash an open drama. AGP lost the 2001 election. The
factional conflicts in AGP further increased. There was attempt within
the party to isolate Mahanta, who on his own came out of AGP with
handful of supporters and organized a new party Asom Gana
Parishad-Progressive (AGP-P). Both AGP and AGP (P) frayed in the 2006
election separately and faced defeat. After lot of discussion and
deliberations, all factions merged with AGP before the 2011 election.
But clash of leadership continued. Brindaban Goswami and Pulakesh
Baruah were isolated deliberately to deny them leadership status.
Rivalry between Prafulla Mahanta and Chandramohan Patowary for chief
ministerial berth became Page3 news. It was interesting that former
Public Works department (PWD) Minister Atul Bora also nursed ambition
of becoming Chief Minister, which he stated in an interview to a
Guwahati daily that he had the competence to be Chief Minister and
would not shirk that responsibility if he was called upon to take it
up. He also alleged that Prafulla Mahanta was involved in the
Rs.200-crore Letter of Credit (LoC) scam (Frontline, January 23, 1998).
On many occasions, AGP’s seat adjustments before the election did not
improve its tally, as its allies were influential only in small pockets
in Assam. For example, its alliance with the left parties in the past
not looked by the hardcore supporters as beneficial election strategy.
Even the overt and covert alliance with the national political party,
Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and seat sharing has been proved
unproductive which further impacted the factional conflict. This had
given an edge to the Congress party indirectly. This shows that AGP
failed to contain factional rivalry tactfully by appealing to the
dormant political desire of hitherto unrepresented social forces to
come under a large federal political umbrella. In 2011 election AGP
could get only 10 seats and had to leave the place of main opposition
party to AIUDF which have 18 MLAs in Assam Assembly. In this election
even the otherwise insignificant parties like Trinnamul Congress and
others have fared better than the AGP and its alley. The All India
United Democratic Front (AIUDF) and the Bodoland People’s Front (BPF)
have improved their tally and the Trinamool Congress has managed to
open its account by winning one seat.

The primary factors within the party for this erosion of public support and factionalism can be summarized as follows –

9.1 The Asom Gana Parishad (AGP) was not formed as cohesive
political party though the background was provided by Assamese National
sentiment for self-determination. It was a conglomeration of different
socio-political organizations who took active part in the Assam
Movement. The founders of the party had their root in All Assam Student
Union (AASU), Asom Gana Sangram Parishad, Purbanchaliya Loka Parishad
(PLP) among others. Though these organizations had unanimous working
agenda of Assamese Nationalism, yet they differed in ideology and
political support base. As such during the first Assembly election, AGP
could enjoy support all over Assam. AGP had to give vent to the
aspirations of all local leaders. This coalition nature of political
articulation debarred AGP from having a High-command structure or
leadership. In India, all regional parties having long success e.g.
DMK, AIADMK in Tamil Nadu, Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) and Samajwadi
Party (SP) in Uttar Pradesh , Trinamul Congress in West Bengal have
charismatic leadership. But the diverse and ethnicity based society of
Assam have not allowed AGP to build a leadership on consensus.

9.2 Further analysis of this issue reveals that politics in Assam is
more contentious than any other part of India. The upsurge of tribal
elites on identity and ethnic line has challenged the concept of
Assamese Nationalism. Even AGP itself has failed to define the
boundaries of Assamese Nationalism, which was the backbone of its
support base. Now the Assamese has different connotations. Some
includes all people residing in Assam irrespective of caste, creed,
language and ethnicity as Assamese. But the orthodox view would include
only the indigenous people within the ambit of Assamese. There have
occurred difference regarding the definition ‘indigenous’ as well. The
term ‘aborigine’ has emerged to give fillip to the movement of
political autonomy among the tribal populace in Assam. Now the tribal
leaders give orientation to their demand for more autonomy in
political, economic and cultural arena in the light of a vexed concept
of domination by the Assamese. As a matter of fact the support base of
AGP dwindled. During the initial years AGP leaders have failed to
incorporate the hitherto unrepresented aspirations of the tribal
people. Bodo and karbi leaders like Upendra Nath Brahma, Jayanta
Rangpi, Holiram Terrang did not get representation in the Assembly or
AGP ministry. This had repercussion in the form of agitation for
political autonomy in Karbi-Anglong and Bodo dominated areas.

9.3 As such the ‘cosmetic political organization’, ‘lack of
high-command’ and ‘contentious political culture’, these three factors
have made AGP fragile for factional rift and split. The political
organization of AGP was cosmetic because it was not well knit in to the
political ground and highly urban centric. The leaders who participated
in the formation of AGP in 1985 belonged to different organizations
that had separate constitutions and agenda. These organizations
continued to operate as before as power groups. This factor had
loosened the organization of AGP leading to factionalism. Contentious
politics encompasses a range of movement outcomes, from small scale
protest demonstration to large scale violent rebellion. Ethnic
rebellion is also a version of contentious politics. The march of
ethnic and identity politics has made the regional appeal of AGP on the
basis of Assamese nationalism irrelevant. Thus the
political splits in AGP cannot be simply termed as personal clash of
interests as Paul Brass have theorized in his reference to Congress
factions in Uttar Pradesh in the 1960s. An analysis of factionalism in
AGP, without the reference of ethnic politics and identity issue is
incomplete. The ethnic antagonism on the other hand is embedded in the
British period, in the colonial process of administration. The
terminology ‘tribal’ itself is a colonial construction rather than
based on primordial ethnic sentiments in India. Dwindling support
base and organizational failure had also impacted upon fund raising
which is an important factor of poor political campaign and strategy
building. Thus AGP has failed to woo the young people. Even
student body like All Assam Student Union have opposed AGP leaders
openly. The joining of Sarnanada Sonowal in BJP, one of the young
leaders of AGP was apparently a result of factional rivalry within the
leaders.

10. Conclusion

Though the leaders of AGP admit that the factional rivalry has cut
their root in the political land of Assam, yet they seem to be unable
to sacrifice their ego and self interests among other things. In place
of soul searching and self rectification, the latest trend indicates
sign of further internal factionalism. While the Congress party appears
to have benefitted by tactful management of internal factionalism in
their favour, the emergence of the Assam United Democratic Front (AUDF)
did cost the Congress a portion of immigrant Muslim votes, but the
Congress regained its lost strength reasonably well by wooing
Assamese-speaking Muslims and some Assamese-speaking Hindus who had
earlier allied with the AGP and the BJP respectively. Thus the gains of
the Congress were across all sections, making it a catch-all party in
Assam. AGP has failed to play its role of strengthening democracy by
being a strong opposition political party; because of which the trend
in Assam is such that ‘democratic polity may turn into cult of
majoritarianism’. The vicious cycle of factional politics has made the
political future of Asom gana Parishdad (AGP) bleak.